1. The rise of Science and Scientism has meant that arguments today are largely around "Facts" - manufactured or otherwise

The fact-value distinction has meant that people are loath to defend their "value judgments" using classical and literary allusions. But instead resort to "facts" to make their point. However superficial these "facts" might be

2. The rise of democracy has meant that working politicians and policy makers now address a much broader audience than they did in the 19th cen

The objective now is not to persuade fellow learned men, but to appeal to the largest demographic. To influence the lowest denominator

So in this new normal, classical education is useless, as nobody will even understand those allusions even if you use them

Arguments tend to be around "social science" facts. Survey results, superficial regression models among other things

A deeper defense of one's values is rare. And even if there is such a defense it is constructed around utilitarian arguments, and not using the wisdom of the classics

3. A third reason for the decline of "Rhetoric" is the democratization of public discourse and the loss of credentialism

Anybody can have his place in the sun, in this world of instant journalism and now social media

In the old days, you had to establish yourself as a voice worthy enough to be heard

And this credential was in part established by one's knowledge of literature, classics and by alluding to them skillfully, one signaled one's erudition

So the use of classical allusions was to tell people - Hey,..I am not just talking through by hat. I have a good enough education to base my arguments in classical precedents

Today, the need for credentialism is not felt. People take a guy on twitter as seriously as a philosopher from Harvard

For better or worse

All of these factors, amplified over the past 70 or so years, have caused a decline in Rhetoric. And a reduced need for it

Even its much poorer cousin "public speaking" is hardly deemed as important anymore

Postscript : One of the other factors that has caused the decline in Rhetoric in modern times is the growing unfashionability of induction, and the increasing reliance on axiomatic arguments

E.g. When someone makes a case "for" or "against" abortion, the arguments are usually made in axiomatic terms with an assumption that one's own stance is moral

The arguments are not based on history anymore

This has led to a reduced need for a grounding in history and classics

E.g. You don't see an anti-abortion activist use the analogy of Kunti and Karna to show how an "unwanted" kid could create or change the course of history

That would be "rhetorical"

The arguments are usually axiomatic and seldom invoke historical or literary analogies

In part the nation state idea gained traction after the decline of the Holy Roman Empire, and the increasing success of the early nation states - England and Holland - which I am sure were an inspiration to other parts of Europe

So ethno-nationalism is very much Western. The liberals tend to downplay this, in part because they are confused.

On one hand they dislike the ethno nation state. Its so uncool
But they also dislike the "Empire" model that preceded the nation state

Related threads

“My name is here presented more to be understood than to be read” said once a #Roman senator.
For my #EarlyMedievalPills, let’s explore what monograms can tell us about changes in political culture & social communication between late antiquity & #Carolingian times.1/

Monogrammatic culture has its roots in the #classical world. Producers used monograms to mark mass-produced objects such as pottery. We also see them on Hellenistic coins. However, they didn’t encode the name of the issuing authority, but functioned as control marks.2/

Influenced by Hellenistic models, #Roman emperors adopted monograms on their coins. They were used to encode the emperor’s name thus becoming personal graphic devices that could also mark certain objects the trade of which was an imperial monopoly.3/

I’m getting tired of people trying to portray Khashoggi as a classical Western liberal. He wasn’t one, and the fact that most of those people can’t even pronounce his name properly tells you a lot about their expertise in the Middle East.

So here is an Arabist’s rant.

I’ve been following Khashoggi since around 2011 as he was, indeed, a prominent figure in the Arab press. I never enjoyed his writing though. It was full of long sentences, easily discernible non sequiturs, and, above all else, primitive clichés.

In 2016 he penned a column for Hayat entitled Wahhabism, the Chinese Model and Vision 2030. As one would expect, it’s very sympathetic towards Mohammad bin Salman’s reforms and full of praise to China. The bottomline: what Saudi Arabia needs isn’t more democracy but more Islam.

001/ [article content in this tweet series 001-180 reproduced with permission from Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain @lawyers4britain]#quote "Leaving the EU on WTO terms: pulling down the barriers to world trade
Introduction: why prices will FALL after Brexit, not rise" /002

002/ #quote "Over the past couple of weeks, the media have been full of lurid scare stories about what will happen if the UK leaves the EU on WTO terms, because negotiations with the EU do not result in a withdrawal agreement." /003

Every time I watch an episode of Star Trek that involves childbirth, I think about William Gibson's "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed," and how technology often reinforces privilege.

Because for fuck's sake, they have transporters.

Given the existing capabilities and limits of Star Trek transporters, there is no reason not to use them to deliver babies. Except that TV writing, like engineering, is dominated by cis men who don't think about how tech advancements would affect people different from them.

(I have no doubt that some people would still choose to give birth naturally for a variety of personal and/or cultural reasons, but it wouldn't be the majority by a long shot).

1/ Manu (The progenitor of Humankind)
All different races of Mankind are derived from Manu and Shradha. The current Manu is Vaivasvata Manu.

2/ The word Manu literary means man but it is a title given to the progenitor of mankind. According to Hindu Puranas there are many kalpas (One day of Lord Brahma the creator) and each Kalpa has 14 manvantara and each manvatara has one manu. So basically each Kalpa has 14 Manus.

3/ The current manu of the present manvantara is Shraddhadeva or Vaivasvata Manu of this current Kalpa. He is the son of Vivasvat (Probably Surya) and is therefore also known as Manu-vaivasvata.